The court emphasized the authority of the Electricity Authorities to make independent assessments and proceed with recovery, even if the Special Court has not yet determined the liability for theft of energy. The court also clarified that charges for unauthorized use of electricity constitute dues relating to the service connection and can be fastened with other service connections.

ORDER :

(Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records of the 1st respondent in Lr.No.EE/V/U/TTU/UV/D.No.A.530/10 dated 13.4.2010, and quash the same.)

(Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records of the 1st respondent in letter No.Exe.Engineer/Distribution/Rural/Tuticorin Vo.Va/Ko. KA/ A.No.1362/1 dated 23.09.2013, and quash the same.)

The petitioner being the proprietor of M/s.Parks Chemicals was a consumer under the respondents having been provided with a High Tension service connection with permitted demand of 365 KVA.

2. The first respondent alleged that there is a theft of energy which is punishable under the provisions of the Electricity Act, for which a Provisional Assessment Order estimating a loss for a sum of Rs.76,79,145/- was issued. Thereafter, a Final Assessment Order was also issued which is subject matter of W.P.No.6654 of 2010. Pending this writ petition, the due under the Final Assessment Order was directed to be included in the domestic service connection of the petitioner by order dated 23.09.2013, which had been challenged by the petitioner in W.P.No.10495 of 2014.

3. Heard Mr.C.S.Krishnamoorthy, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for Mr.Sivanchandran, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.6654 of 2010 and for Mr.P.Thiagarajan, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.10495 of 2014 and Mr.S.Deenadhayalan, learned standing counsel for the respondents in both the writ petitions.

4. Mr.C.S.Krishamoorthy, learned Senior Counsel would submit that the petitioner had originally been a proprietor of Parks Chemicals involved in the manufacture of carbide. He had availed a High Tension service connection in service connection No.236 with a permitted demand of 365 KVA and has been regularly remitting the current consumption charges. While that be so, on 27.02.2010, the first respondent had issued a Provisional Assessment Order claiming a sum of Rs.76,79,145/-. The said demand has been made based upon the inspection note issued by the Assistant Executive Engineer and the Assistant Engineer. The petitioner was forced to pay an amount of Rs.18,25,000/- towards compounding of offences. Immediately on receipt of the Provisional Assessment Order, the petitioner had submitted a detailed objection. He had also questioned the issuance of notice to one Kalidass who was alleged to be the Manager working under the petitioner. He would contend that there was no recording of any foul play by the inspection team. He would also submit that there was no proper notice of inspection by the Authorities.

5. He would further submit that the assessment period viz., between 06.08.2009 and 27.02.2010 is also without any basis and therefore, the calculations arrived at by the first respondent is wholly erroneous. He would also submit that when the seal was broke-open during the inspection on 26.02.2010 and the same has been resealed and it was certified to be ok. When that be so, the allegation of theft is a figment of imagination of the first respondent for the reasons best known to him. He would further submit that once the alleged theft has been compounded, there is no question of any civil liability whereby the petitioner would have to pay for the alleged consumption charges as claimed in the order impugned in the writ petition. He would further submit that the inspection, the Provisional Assessment Order and the Final Assessment Order were passed by the same Authority and therefore, there has been procedural violation committed by the respondents and therefore on that ground alone, the order impugned in W.P.No.6654 of 2010 should be set aside. He would further submit that the levy had been made mechanically.

6. He would submit that the Authority had n